I read this article and was astounded at some of the lunacy Gingrich was spouting.
He made a call to limit free speech in order to combat Terrorism and now is defending it with gems like
and
We’ve already had people detained for months without charges or representation and people declared to be outside any law or the Geneva convention so they have virtually no rights at all.
Isn’t what Gingrich suggesting here just another Salem witch hunt or the same shamefull behavior we saw in the McCarthy era? How can we have that kind of history lesson and still have this ass get away with these comments without being booed out of the country?
It’s a little too early to equate terrorism (or the fear thereof) as the new McCarthyism. No one is seriously suggesting that Senator So-and-so is secretly an al Qaeda sleeper agent, AFAIK.
On the other hand, it’s not too early at all to recognize that Newt Gingrich is batshit insane and should not be trusted with anything more powerful than an electric toothbrush.
(I especially loved the part where Newt urged a departure from “heavy partisanship,” considering his role in the Clinton witchhunts of the '90s…)
There’s no lists of names being waved around, but there have been serious allegations that parties as a whole are terrorist fronts, including the Democrats.
I think it’s a fair comparison – it’s true that it’s more subtle now, but that’s because there’s lingering embarrassment over McCarthyism, keeping things in check. In fact I suspect that if we didn’t have that fairly recent experience branded on the American psyche, things would be much worse now than they were then.
I think the part that concerned me the most was the idea that if someone is even suspected of any sympathy toward any group even named terrorist then they might be detained without rights or due process.
That gets us too near the witch hunt for me. If a group has a political enemy they can silence them by making some accusation even if it’s groundless. People become afraid to speak out for fear they will be targeted.
I listened to Gingrich on Meet the Press. I think he’s doing it as a deliberate strategy to cement Republican and conservative power. He has come to the conclusion that their power derives from fear, and the more unreasoning the fear, the more power they have. Pretty sick stuff, but par for the course for Newt-boy.
I also liked the way he was calling for an end to partisanship, after all he did to fan its flames. It’s like some goon breaks into your house, breaks all your furniture, kicks your wife and rapes your dog, and then when you start whaling on him he says, “It’s time to end all this bickering and squabbling.”
The correct response to that is: “No, it’s not, you bastard!” :::Punch!:::
Also, we seem to be getting some McCarthy-vintage censorship (or self-censorship). Why aren’t cable companies picking up Al Jazeera’s English-language network, which debuted recently?
Some ideas, I suppose, are not allowed into America’s “marketplace of ideas.”
I agree. We might even understand those awful Arabs better if we listened to what they had to say in their own words rather than get it filtered through half a dozen media airheads.
How would they know the seat numbers of the hijackers? I don’t know them. I don’t remember ever seeing an article which listed them (though I suppose the information must be out there somewhere.)
What, did they supposedly all call and reserve certain seats? What are the odds of all of the 9/11 hijackers’ seat numbers being available for reservation?
Are all airliners’ seats numbered in the same fashion? (Given that the layouts of the interiors differ somewhat.) Or, was it a matter of, “They sat three rows back, just like the terrorists did!”
Gingrich’s idea for a Geneva Convention-like document outlining rules for the world we currently live in is a good thing. When we attempt to follow the GC, which does not include terrorists and those not uniformed, the American left turns us into the bad guys. (Not that we aren’t sometimes.) But crafting a new document that takes into account the nature of the threat we now face seems like a logical, necessary thing to do.
Why be astounded? When people intentionally act like terrorists?
According to the Wall Street Journal ,(registration req’d) they acted in a very suspicious manner:
according to the washington times their behavior was very suspicious
this is NOT McCarthyism–it is a legitimate and reasonable way to handle airport security.
I am less worried about right-wing McCarthyism than I am about left-wing “reverse McCarthyism”–the political correctness police.
The OP asks if a new Mccarthyism is developing. But it looks like reverse McCarthyism is already here.
Look at the bolding I added to the above quotes–people in positions of responsiblity are AFRAID to speak publicly, because they might lose their jobs. Isn’t that what happened in the 1950’s?
I don’t know that this has anything to do with terrorism or the climate of fear. It probably has more to do with the fact that many workplaces forbid employees from talking about their jobs/employers with the media.
I never said that it was a Good Thing, though I do understand the company’s perspective on it. Any employee who goes on record becomes a “representative” of that company in the eyes of the public, who tend to give an insider’s words more weight than an interview with the Average Joe. It can cause a lot of problems if the employee mistates/misrepresents the company’s policies.
People were afraid to speak out against McCarthyism for fear of losing their jobs or being labeled a communist sympathizer. Much like the right today tried to label anyone who disagreed with them with “aiding the terrorists”
We already had a pit thread about that incident. I was called a bigot for suggesting that the six Imams might have been trying create an incident. I agree with you. We can’t let the fear of not being politically correct and perhaps being accused of racial profiling stop us from being vigilant. That’s not the point of my OP though. Gingrich is going the other way. The six Imams were questioned for hours by the FBI and released. Gingrich would have them arrested for acting like terrorist. Who the hell makes that kind of call? I think if there were enough evidence to show they purposely provoked the incident there should be some punishment but his suggestion goes beyond the pale when he adds “if you act suspiciously it’s up to you to prove you’re not a terrorist”
We’re a country of laws and supposed principles as well. We shouldn’t be eager to throw out our laws and principles when they are put to a difficult test.
I sure wouldn’t want Gingrich on the panel that creates that document. My guess is we already have enough international law and guidelines in place to handle the situation. The problem I see is this admin going beyond those laws to create there own in handling terrorism. It seems pretty unAmerican to me to detain someone indefinitely with no rights and no charges simply under suspicion of maybe being a terrorist.
Perhaps a new international convention in dealing with terrorism isn’t a bad idea. I wouldn’t trust this admin to be a postive force in that convention.